While there is much in Our Children Our Future to be admired,
it does have its weaknesses. For example, I find its arguments against
the denominational system and for the nondenominational one to be frequently
unsound and unconvincing. The purpose of this brief paper is to examine
some of these arguments.

First, I question the basic assumption of the Report that a unified
system is at the apex of educational evolutionary development. In
its Preface the Report describes the Constitutional guarantees of denominational
schools as effecting paralysis in the system and stifling its ability to
respond to change (p. xvi). It then concludes, "the next step in
our evolutionary development must come, and we must ensure that it is towards
the creation of a comprehensive, unified... administrative structure" (p.
xvii). But as I look around me I see no evidence to suggest that
homogeneity in education is the goal toward which Canadian society is struggling,
or is the educational end of its striving. In fact, there is evidence
to show that the Canadian public is asking for a variety of schools to
preserve and foster diversity. Holmes (1991) sums up this trend:

The spirit of cultural and structural pluralism is... alive and
well in Canadian educational policy as the following trends clearly demonstrate:

(a) the growth Of Private schools in urban, industrial Canada;

(b) recognition of independent schools in the form of provincial funding
in British Columbia, Alberta, Quebec and Saskatchewan;

(d) de jure and de facto conversion of Ontario's education system into
a full dual (public secular/Roman Catholic) system (p. 94).

In the context of this pluralism it does not seem unusual for the provincial
and federal governments to provide a French school in Mainland, on the
Port au Port Peninsula and another in St. John's, to make provision for
an Innu school in Labrador, and to support a micmac school in Conne River,
all for the purpose of preserving and fostering French and aboriginal language
and culture. It seems ironic, then, that at a time when we are beginning
to celebrate diversity, the Royal Commission Report recommends the elimination
of any diversity in education based on religious convictions. There
seems to be much more tolerance of division by language and culture then
there is of division by religious beliefs. But, it needs to be pointed
out, one's religious beliefs, and the habits, conventions, rituals, symbols,
and celebrations that grow out of them, are a fundamental part of the culture
of Christian denominations and need to be taken as seriously as we take
the culture of minorities.

Given the context described above, I find it peculiar that the
Commissioners argue that the non-denominational system is one that accommodates
"the changing nature of society" (p. 220). If by changing nature
of society the Commissioners mean, as they seem to, that society is becoming
more diverse and pluralistic, it is difficult to see how a non-denominational
system better accommodates, this diversity. First, it, by definition,
eliminates the diversity of the denominations by homogenizing the system.
Second, it can only accommodate the diversity of other beliefs and religious
convictions by ceasing to be a system based on the Christian tradition.
That is, this system would, as it tried to accommodate diversity, retreat
further and further from the Christian culture. Denominationalists
are, I think, afraid that this retreat from Christian culture will be a
forced retreat as they lose control of education. The experiences
in other parts of the country give them cause to worry. For example,
in 1988 the Supreme Court of Ontario ruled that religious exercises prescribed
for the opening or closing of the schools of the Respondent School Board
were an infringement on the freedom of religion and conscience guaranteed
by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Similarly, in 1988 in British
Columbia the Supreme Court ruled the School Act, requiring schools to be
opened by Bible readings and the Lord's Prayer, to be constitutionally
invalid. In 1990 the Supreme Court of Ontario ruled that religious
education courses in the elementary schools of Elgin County (a county whose
population, according to 1981 census, is 90% of Christian background),
were indoctrination, although they contained stories from other world religions,
and, therefore, infringed the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

It seems to me that if we are to provide for and foster diversity
in society we must provide for diversity in schools. This is what
is being done in some parts of Canada and in some other countries.
For example, in Holland parents may form their own school if they have
a minimum of 25 students. The same policy exists in New Zealand (Lawton,
1990). The Sullivan Report on education in British Columbia also
accepts the notion of diversity in schooling. The commissioners state
that as long as schools meet certain requirements, "our wish is to encourage
choice and diversity, both within and outside the public school system"
(p. 56). We boast that, unlike the melting pot American culture,
ours is a mosaic. I think that melting pot schools, as suggested
by the writers of Our Children Our Future, are not the most appropriate
kind to serve and foster a mosaic culture.

It also seems to me contradictory for the Commissioners to argue
that we should eliminate denominational schools in order to protect "the
general rights of individuals" (p. 220). If, for example, we "eliminate"
the schools of Pentecostals and Roman Catholics, the majority of whom support
the status quo, (p. 80) won't we be undermining their right to provide
the kind of education they want for their children? I don't think
we can argue for the elimination of denominational schools on the basis
of protecting individual rights, for the very establishment of a non-denominational
system implies that the majority of the adherents of the two denominations
mentioned would have to abrogate their rights in deference to the rights
of the minority.

The Commissioners have indicated that they rejected the denominational
system because the majority of Newfoundlanders rejected it (p. 219).
Whether or not the majority really did reject the present system is not
at all clear, given the apparent contradictions and anomalies in the responses
to their questionnaire. However, even if we accept the Commissioners'
interpretation of the results, there is still a problem in using these
figures to support their rejection of the denominational system.
The problem arises with the Commissioners' use of the whole province as
its constituency. It is my view that the constituency should not
be the entire province but the denominations, whose authority will be lost
in a non-denominational system, and whose adherents will lose the right
to choose the kinds of school they want for their children, a right which
the commissioners seem to support. We have provided schools for other
groups - Micmac, Innu, French because we accept the principle of cultural
diversity, and, it should be added, without feeling it necessary to get
the opinions of the whole province on the issue. For the same reason
we should support the wishes of those denominations whose adherents want
to maintain the status quo. To do otherwise is to be guilty of discrimination
and to contravene the principle of cultural and religious pluralism.

Finally, I find the commissioners' argument that "the direction
of the future must be towards a system (non-denominational) which embodies
tolerance and openness" (p. 227) to be weak. First, the underlying
assumption of the argument is that a denominational system embodies intolerance
and narrow-mindedness. There is no discussion of this point and no
evidence to support it. Second, tolerance and openness are regarded
here as independent values. They are not. In other words, we
can only accept tolerance as desirable when we know and agree with what
is being asserted as worthy of our tolerance. The Commissioners,
for example, say that the school system they recommend should provide 'a
school environment which reflects Christian principles" (p. 227).
However, if a non-denominational school insisted on these principles, it
could be said to be intolerant of non-Christian principles if they conflicted;
and if it wanted to be known as a school that is tolerant and open, it
would have to abandon them. The fact is that a school system is informed
by a core set of values, which means that it cannot be tolerant of everything.
For example, Roman Catholic schools cannot be tolerant of abortion on demand
because such a position is subversive of a core Roman Catholic value.
To be tolerant of it would be offensive to them, as offensive to them as
the prohibition of abortion is to pro-choice groups. In their denominational
schools Roman Catholics are free to express intolerance towards abortion.
Would they be free to do so in non-denominational schools? Or would
such schools be paradoxically, intolerant of this core value? If
the answer is no, the principle of tolerance will have been undermined
and a significant group of parents will feel unhappy that schools do not
reflect their core values. If the answer is yes, because this value
is only one among the many values that must be accommodated, schools can
be accused of supporting the relativity of moral values and even more parents
become dissatisfied. The point is that although we usually presume
tolerance to be a good thing, the presumption is not always absolute and
is usually overridden when we are asked to be tolerant of those values
which conflict with and are inimical to our core values. In other
words, tolerance can only be an independent value if it doesn't matter
what we are tolerant of, if, that is, everything is tolerated.

This paper has argued that there are flaws in some of the Report's
arguments for non-denominational schools. Specifically, it has attempted
to show that the Commissioners were wrong to assume the non-denominational
system to be at the apex of some educational evolutionary development.
It also argues that this system is not better than the denominational system
in accommodating diversity and pluralism, and in protecting the rights
of individuals. Further, it points out that in using the whole province
as a constituency (when analysing the results of their questionnaires),
instead of each denomination, the Commissioners have, in their conclusions,
ignored the wishes of the adherents of two denominations (Pentecostal and
Roman Catholic) although the majority of them supported the status quo.
Finally, it takes issue with the Commissioners' argument for non-denominational
schools on the basis of tolerance and openness.

REFERENCES

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. Our Children,
Our Future. St. John's, Newfoundland, 1992.

Holmes, Mark. 'The Future of the Public School in Canada'.
In Allison, Derek J. and Paquette, Jerry (Eds.). Reform
and Relevance in Schooling: Dropouts, DeStreaming and the Common Curriculum.
Toronto: OISE Press, 1991.